Germany joins Swiss, ends ALL nuke plants

[His Divine Shadow]

So according to the news the german decision might double electricity prices in Finland.

[Thanas]

How?

[His Divine Shadow]

Whole bunch of reasons from industry reactions, trading in pollution rights and whatnot are mentioned.

[Thanas]

I just cannot see how Germany's decision influences Finnish reactors, sorry. At least not to the point of doubling the prices.

[His Divine Shadow]

I sure as hell hope so.

Also nobody said it'd influence our reactors.

[Skgoa]

I am highly skeptic of that assessment, too. The decission that was announced was that they WOULDN'T change the plan. This plan has been published for 13 years, surely it's effects can't be a surprise NOW.

[Thanas]

Unless of course, people were stupid enough to believe that despite all laws and stated intentions, Germany would see the light and convert to nuclear power because of *insert nuclear cheerleading here*. Same thing happened with the transformation of the industry, everybody was like "germany will convert to service-based economy as soon as they see the light" back then as well.

[J]

Why not go with the actual data: http://www.transparency.eex.com/de/

In 2010 the max volume (if that term can be used here) of energy that could have been produced by nuclear power plants was 20441 MW. (Note: this includes the plants that are planned to not be switched on anymore.) The total capability to generate electricity in Germany was 133085.1 MW. Now, actual usage numbers are only available for plants >100 MW, so lets keep in mind that 1) 83 GW can be produced in that category (63GW without NPPs) and 2) <100MW is almost exclusively renewables.
For today, the peak (in that category) is expected to be just above 51.5GW, with a "planed non-availablility" of capacity at 20.5GW and "unplaned non-availablility" at 5.5GW. When I had checked back in march, the peak for that day had been 55GW.
What does that mean? Well, nothing less than this little factoid: on a national level, all nuclear power generation capability could be taken from the grid today without energy shortages. The reasons to keep them are: to have a bigger margin of safety, its just economically better to produce energy near where it is needed and the fuel rods and plants are payed for already, other fuels would have to be bought. It also means that due to the reduction in use of electricity that we are seeing right now and that is expected to continue and due to new production capacity comming online in the next decades, the margin of safety will grow ever bigger, allowing us to phase out other kinds of plants, too.

You're confusing power with energy. You're looking at the nameplate capacity of the electricity source without taking its capacity factor into account; there may be 26GW of wind turbines installed but if the wind isn't blowing you get nothing. What you claim can only be done on sunny windy summer days when wind & solar farms are running near full capacity.

Allow me to provide an example. The Province of Ontario has a bit under 35GW of generating capacity with an average consumption of 21GW and an all-time record peak of 27GW. We have power to spare and should never have to import power, right? Well, no. Any time demand gets up in the 25-26GW range we need to import power from our neighbours.

This is a much larger problem for you guys since your electricity sources are far more variable than ours. If we calculate the capacity factors for German nuclear and wind power we find that nuclear has a CF of just under 76% while for wind it's a dismal 16%, meaning on average that wind power only generates 16% as much energy as it should. Energy is the key, not power. If you have 100GW of generating capacity, 40GW of demand and the capacity factor is 30%, you have an energy shortage and will need to import power.

As an exercise for the readers, work out how many GW of windpower will need to be installed in Germany to produce the same amount of energy as their nuclear generating stations.

[Thanas]

You're confusing power with energy. You're looking at the nameplate capacity of the electricity source without taking its capacity factor into account; there may be 26GW of wind turbines installed but if the wind isn't blowing you get nothing. What you claim can only be done on sunny windy summer days when wind & solar farms are running near full capacity.

Allow me to provide an example. The Province of Ontario has a bit under 35GW of generating capacity with an average consumption of 21GW and an all-time record peak of 27GW. We have power to spare and should never have to import power, right? Well, no. Any time demand gets up in the 25-26GW range we need to import power from our neighbours.

This is a much larger problem for you guys since your electricity sources are far more variable than ours. If we calculate the capacity factors for German nuclear and wind power we find that nuclear has a CF of just under 76% while for wind it's a dismal 16%, meaning on average that wind power only generates 16% as much energy as it should. Energy is the key, not power. If you have 100GW of generating capacity, 40GW of demand and the capacity factor is 30%, you have an energy shortage and will need to import power.

Yes, I am sure nobody figured that out, with our safety margin extending to 15 GW....and we never had any consumption higher than 80 GW. Not once.

[J]

Yes, I am sure nobody figured that out, with our safety margin extending to 15 GW....and we never had any consumption higher than 80 GW. Not once.

I would like to see some sources for that, along with how you arrived at a figure of 90GW for secure production.

[Thanas]

Links are above, the sources are the internal calculations of our ministries.

[J]

No definitions, no breakdowns of where the power comes from, it just says it is. What is secure production? How is it defined? What does it consist of? What I've seen in the links so far is not much better than the solar power spew coming from SI over in the solar power thread.

[Thanas]

Why don't you petition the ministry so that they can release their confidential reports? When the tagesschau says something, it usually is authoritative, they probably got the best track record in the world.

[J]

So it is because they say it is and we'll just have to take them at their word based on their reputation. There's no way to verify or look inside their black box calculations, nor their assumptions, nor anything else; here's a number, take it or leave it.

Aren't there some other publically available sources from which we can derive some ballpark numbers?

[Thanas]

Sure, but I honestly don't want to spend the time looking for them. When the overwhelming consensus among nearly all but nuclear-paid mouthpieces is "not that much of a deal, really" then I do not spend that much time questioning everybody.

[J]

We now have a source giving an idea of how the 90GW number was arrived at courtesy of Deutsche Bank. In short they looked at capacity factors and adjusted outputs accordingly. I encourage everyone to read and digest the report in full.

An excerpt from the cover page:

Germany’s Federal election on 27 September is key to future energy policy
Our ETS emissions forecasts over 2010-20 assume that Germany’s nuclear phaseout
will not proceed as planned. As a result, should the current policy remain in
place after the election, we would expect to raise our ETS-emissions forecasts by
15Mt for 2013 and by up to 40Mt by 2020. With German generators set to start
hedging 2013 power later this year, we think any election outcome that indicated a
continuation of the current nuclear phase-out policy could provide support for EUA
and power prices in Q4 of this year

Germany’s nuclear phase-out set to start in earnest over the next Parliament
In April 2002 Germany’s amended Atomic Energy Act entered into force
mandating the closure of all nuclear power plants by 2022. Two plants were shut
down under the previous government, but during the current parliament there
have been no further closures. However, over 2010-13 there are 7.1GW of nuclear
capacity scheduled to close. This means that the government that emerges from
September’s election will have to decide whether to continue the phase-out or
offer lifetime extensions to the seven nuclear plants due to come offline by 2013.

If the nuclear phase-out continues, the main replacement fuel will be coal
Of 21.4GW of planned new German generation capacity by 2013 (11.1GW already
under construction, 9.5GW approved, and 800MW pending approval), 10.3GW is
coal based (7.5GW of hard coal, and 2.8GW of lignite), 4.7GW CCGT, and 6GW
offshore wind. However, we think the higher cost and greater challenge of
building so much new offshore-wind capacity so quickly will lead to overruns
against the expected start-up dates. As a result, we assume that only 2.1GW of
offshore-wind capacity will in fact be onstream by 2013. And since only 10% of
gross offshore-wind capacity can be considered firm, this means that we expect
coal or lignite capacity to account for two thirds of a total 15.6GW of new firm
capacity by 2013, with most of the remaining third being CCGT.

This would mean higher CO2 emissions by 2013 and 2020
In the base-case scenario we have modelled in this report, we conclude that
Germany’s power sector would likely emit 15Mt of CO2 more by 2013 than it
does today if the 7.1GW of nuclear capacity were indeed to be removed from the
grid along with 9.4GW of older fossil-fuel plant. On a worst-case scenario we find
that emissions could rise by as much as 30Mt by 2013 relative to today’s levels,
while on a best-case scenario the increase might be only 6Mt. Assuming that the
nuclear phase-out were then to continue over 2014-20, we calculate that
emissions would likely increase by c.40Mt by 2020 compared with today’s level.
Our worst-case scenario suggests emissions could be up to 62Mt higher.

[FTeik]

Certainly, but according to him, it doesn't matter how safe [insert industry] is when people in power can't be trusted.

Well, think about it.

To Germans, it does not and should not matter how safe a nuclear plant on some other continent is. What matters is how safe the plants in Germany are. The plants in Germany are old, nearing the end of their design lives, and are operated by power companies who are locally famous for corruption and incompetence. That is not an encouraging combination.

It doesn't matter to Germans how safe someone else's plants can be; it matters to them how safe their own plants are, given who's running them. Since the people running the plants are unreliable, and the plants themselves are from the antiquated breed that created so much trouble elsewhere... well, you see the problem.

I don't think you understand what I was going for. If Merckel et al can't be trusted to handle German nuclear power plants no matter how safe they actually are, then any other dangerous industry in Germany shouldn't be trusted to continue as well.

Singling nuclear power as a bogeyman is exactly what we shouldn't be doing.

Perhaps I should elaborate on the context on which I made that statement:

Germany is supposed to be a leading first world country and we like to bragg about how good our engineers are and what great safety-standards we have (not only with nuclear-powerplants). And for decades your politicans have told you, that your nuclear powerplants are the safest in the world. In fact, this was part of the argument with which the conservative-liberal government prolonged the running of the powerplants last year. On the other side, you hear about things like Asse, that most of the plants can't resist even a sports-plane crashing into them and that a lot of things have been covered up.

Alright, some of the incidents Greenpeace and the hippie-brigade were complaining about might have just been the coffee-machine of the works-cantina being defect, but it starts you to think. Then something like Fukishima happens and suddenly all the politicians, who less than six months ago couldn't prolong the running-time for those powerplants long enough make a 180°-turn in the opposite direction. What are you supposed to think? Had they stood in front of the cameras and said: "What happened in Japan is a great tragedy and human desaster, but lets not forget, that in our region of the world there are no earthquakes that strong and we also don't suffer from tsunamis." - then they would have kept their credibility. But instead they said: "Maybe our NPPs aren't as safe as we thought, we better switch them of to run a few tests." So they were either pulling your leg then or they are pulling your leg now, since as far as the powerplants are concerned nothing had changed. Gadhaffi, Kim Jung Ill or Comical Ali might have gotten away with such behavior, but not Angela Merkel and the oligopol of the four great energy-companies.

Add the problems other people have already mentioned like costs, the lack of qualified personal and so on and you have to accept, that nuclear has been dying a slow death for a long time in Germany. Recent events have only accelerated the passing (or to be more precise, put it back on track).

[Skgoa]

Has anyone ever said "they might not be as safe as we claimed"? To me it seemed more like their message was "our plants are safe, because we say so. thats also the reason why we don't have to check their safety. oh and btw we are switching them of asap because people want us to, not because they are unsafe." At least after Chernobyl there was an actual safety assessment and at least one unsafe plant was switched of shortly after that, unfortunately it was our only thorium pebble bed reactor. (Fun fact: they never admitted to it being switched of due to Chernobyl, but it was a very new reactor that much latter was admitted to have had the same graphite fire vulnerability as Chernobyl...)

@J: The BMWi has several studies on their website. But yeah, go on trusting Deutsche Bank of all peopel(/institutions) to make unbiased assessments.

[J]

@J: The BMWi has several studies on their website. But yeah, go on trusting Deutsche Bank of all peopel(/institutions) to make unbiased assessments.

Point me to the studies in question, I really don't have the time to trawl through their entire database of articles.

With regards to the Deutsche Bank report, you don't agree with it, fine. Tell me where you disagree and we'll hash it out. As always, I expect numbers and sources.

[Skgoa]

Sure, but I honestly don't want to spend the time looking for them. When the overwhelming consensus among nearly all but nuclear-paid mouthpieces is "not that much of a deal, really" then I do not spend that much time questioning everybody.

In addition to that, something should be kept in mind: the fucking GREENS have gone against their long standing campaign promise of switching the nuclear plants of immediatly. Think about that for a moment. Might it be that actual experts have looked at the numbers and found the optimal plan after careful deliberation? I know its not a good argument, but somehow I just can't believe that NO ONE has used the impossibility of the phase out to eviscerate the Greens in any electoral campaign of the last 13 years, if it truely is as bad as J has us believe.

[Thanas]

With regards to the Deutsche Bank report, you don't agree with it, fine. Tell me where you disagree and we'll hash it out. As always, I expect numbers and sources.

I almost already know this will be an exercise in futility since you have shown a remarkable capacity to go "ZOMG. PANIK" before and ignoring numbers, but have fun.

Also, here is the commission report..



Also, I question your objectivity as you seem to trust the company with a great investment in nuclear energy (Deutsche Bank).

[J]

Also, I question your objectivity as you seem to trust the company with a great investment in nuclear energy (Deutsche Bank).

They do? I wouldn't know. In any case their numbers are taken from Platts which is the industry authority in energy.
Anyway, thanks for the links, unfortunately my German is fairly poor so I'll have to get it translated by someone at my workplace. If you do know of an English version it would help greatly in speeding things along.

[Thanas]

Sadly no. I would suggest focusing on the second link - it is the report and arguments that pretty much sealed the deal.


As for the Deutsche Bank numbers, they leave a lot out of it. Like, for example, how nuclear power already declined by 20% since 1999 in Germany already.

[Big Orange]

France, meanwhile, stubbornly trundles on with its nuclear power stations:

France expands nuclear power plans despite Fukushima

In the aftermath of Japan's nuclear crisis at Fukushima, some European nations are rethinking their atomic plans. But France, home to 58 of 143 reactors in the EU, remains nuclear energy's champion, and plans not to retire its power stations but to expand them. Emma Jane Kirby examines why.

For many tourists visiting the tranquil north Normandy coast, the giant EPR reactor at Flamanville is little more than a lamentable industrial scar on a rather beautiful landscape.

But to the French government, Flamanville's European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is the embodiment of the future.

Following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power station - which was heavily damaged by the deadly 11 March quake and tsunami - President Nicolas Sarkozy announced there would be an audit of all nuclear facilities.

But he added firmly that France would not be rethinking its nuclear energy policy as neighbours Germany, Italy and Switzerland have.

Unlike Germany's reversal of policy on Monday that will see it phase out the country's 17 nuclear power stations by 2022, Mr Sarkozy said France was confident that nuclear energy was safe and it was "out of the question" to end nuclear power.

Sceptical public

The EPR being constructed in Flamanville is marketed as the most secure power station yet.

It is built by EDF, a company which is 80% owned by the French government.

The system is organised into four sub-systems (current plants in operation only have two), each located in separate rooms away from the reactor building.

Simultaneous failure of the systems is regarded as almost impossible; the idea is that if an incident were to occur on one of the systems, the reactor could continue to operate safely during repairs, as at least two other systems would remain available.

In the event of a meltdown, the core would be isolated by the reactor building's dual-wall containment which has one wall in pre-stressed concrete designed to withstand significant increases in pressure, and the second in reinforced concrete, known as the concrete shell.

But many French people - including Didier Anger, an anti-nuclear campaigner and former MEP - are not convinced.

"That's just propaganda," Mr Anger told the BBC at his home a few miles inland from Flamanville.

He pointed to the strong ties between EDF and the French government and asked how we could trust the government's word about nuclear safety when it owns such a massive stake in the company that builds the reactors? It was all, he insisted, the "same club".

"France claims to be a democracy," he laughed. "But in terms of the nuclear industry we are yet to prove that!

"A few weeks ago, after Fukushima, the current director of our nuclear safety authority announced in front of MPs that perhaps we should stop the EPR reactor to look at any possible problems.

"A few hours later he was made to back-pedal... he was silenced... because the power of the old boys' network is formidable in France."

Stress tests

The high-tech EPR reactor at Flamanville has been designed to withstand disasters such as a plane crash - but older reactors will not have such sophisticated security systems.

Claude Birraux, an MP with President Sarkozy's governing UMP party, has been chairing the official French parliamentary inquiry into the Fukushima accident, and hopes that the EU stress tests coupled with the separate French audit will help to reassure a nervous French public.

"There will be a review made by the safety authorities and if one nuclear power plant is not able to answer to those questions (set by the EU), it can maybe be shut down," he said. "Maybe."

Two years ago, cracks were found in the concrete base of the reactor dome at Flamanville and welding proved to be sub-standard. Addressing those safety issues has meant the project is now at least two years behind schedule and way over budget.

This week, European nuclear watchdogs must start safety checks - or stress tests - on their nuclear facilities to make sure they could withstand an earthquake or tsunami like that at Fukushima.

Although a 9m (30 ft) wave is unlikely on the North Normandy coast at Flamanville, Prof Jacques Foos, one of France's most respected nuclear scientists, says all precautions must be taken.

"The accident at Fukushima proved completely extraordinary events can happen," he told me. "So what would happen if a giant wave did hit one of our nuclear power plants? We need to check that out.

"I'm not saying we need to think about every eventuality such as what would happen if we were struck by a meteorite... but I am saying that when we build nuclear power plants now, we have to think the unthinkable."

Major export

Nuclear technology is one of France's major exports.

Three years ago, France struck a deal with the UK to build four new EPR reactors in Britain but in December 2009 it lost a $40bn (£24bn) reactor deal with Abu Dhabi amid recriminations that it was too costly.

President Sarkozy insisted that the deal was lost because its high safety standards drove up the cost. Professor Jacques Foos hopes that in a post-Fukushima world its "safety first" EPR reactors will bring in more business for France.

"We will see a boost in sales now," he said confidently. "Because who would baulk at paying for safety these days? You can't have a reactor these days that's thought of as being too safe."

A boost in sales should result in a boost in jobs but that's not an argument that holds much sway with anti-nuclear campaigner Didier Anger. Building on a second EPR reactor on the Normandy coast at Penly begins next year but Mr Anger doubts it will boost employment.

"In Flamanville, we thought the EPR would bring a lot of employment... but 50% of the workers are from Poland or Romania, or at least not from here," he complained.

He pointed to the high 9.7% unemployment rate in the Cherbourg area and asked me why I thought the jobless total was so high.

"It's because a lot of businesses are scared off by the EPR reactor," said Mr Anger. "They think what if there was an accident? The exclusion zone would be 20km [12 miles] or more. That's no good for business… so they don't set up here."

Nuclear landscape?

But if France is to make more sales with the EPR reactor, who will the new customers be when most of Europe appears to be pulling out of the nuclear energy game and mothballing their old reactors?

Could nuclear technology be sold to countries which simply aren't ready to deal with the potential risks?

MP Claude Birraux insists that France will only sell nuclear technology to responsible countries.

"There are three rules: safety, safety and safety, whatever the cost," he said. "You need to have regulation, legislation and you need an independent safety authority... otherwise no... you can't have it."

France began developing its civilian nuclear programme as a response to oil shortages in the 1970s. With dwindling fossil fuel supplies, the country is increasingly reliant on its nuclear power plants which now provide it with three-quarters of its electricity.

Nuclear energy, said Claude Birraux, was essential for "French independence".

With 58 nuclear reactors already in operation here, sites like Flamanville look likely to be part of the French landscape for many years to come.

BBC

[D.Turtle]

I just wanted to address the question of the image some of you were asking about.

That image depicts the plans of the CSU (regional party controlling the coalition government in Bavaria) for the phase-out of nuclear energy in Bavaria.

And I will also mention that it envisions more than a doubling of renewable energy from 24% to 53% by 2020 - hardly insignificant.